ZEIT ONLINE: ISRAEL CANNOT LET ‘AID’ SHIPS INTO GAZA…….

These pro-Hamas activist flotilla participants are in fact enablers of terrorism, pure and simple. The fact that the MSM wants to team up with them should tell you all you need to know about modern day journalism. KGS

The first attempt ended in bloodshed. Now another humanitarian convoy is headed for Gaza with the aim of breaking the Israeli sea blockade. Israel has no choice but to act, says maritime law expert Heintschel von Heinegg.

By Jade-Yasmin Tänzler
16 June 2011

Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg is an international and maritime law expert who teaches at Europa-Universität Viadrina in Frankfurt. He has also served as an adviser to the Turkel Commission that Israel established in the summer of 2010. The commission has been tasked with determining how and why violence erupted on 31 May 2010 between passengers on the Gaza humanitarian convoy and Israeli soldiers.

ZEIT ONLINE: The deployment of Israeli forces in May of last year against a humanitarian convoy headed for Gaza unleashed cries of protest worldwide. Now a second and far larger international convoy is on its way to Gaza – a convoy that aims to break Israeli’s sea blockade of Gaza. Is this blockade even allowable from a legal standpoint?

Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg: Well that depends on how you characterize the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. When jurists come together, they often disagree on this matter. But there’s definitely a consensus on one thing – namely that what you have here is an armed conflict. Which means that the laws governing such conflicts apply; and under these laws, sea blockades are allowed.

ZEIT ONLINE: But doesn’t the conflict also have to involve two or more states?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Right. And the problem is that Palestine is not a state – at least not yet – which is why many feel that the conflict is not an international armed conflict. And if you take that view, then blockade laws don’t apply. But if you take an objective look at the relevant legal analyses, it’s readily apparent that the basic admissibility of the Israeli blockade has never been called into question.

ZEIT ONLINE: You yourself have characterized Israel’s action against the convoy in 2010 as being perfectly legitimate. Why is that?

Heintschel von Heinegg: If a blockade is allowable in this conflict, then it’s also allowable to take measures to set up such a blockade. There’s only one principle that characterizes a blockade: the principle of effectiveness. In other words, the blockade has to prevent ships from entering or leaving the blockade zone. If the blockade fails to do this even once, it is ineffective and thus immediately becomes legally ineffective as well.

ZEIT ONLINE: So this means that when it comes to this blockade, Israel is in a catch-22 situation, right?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Right. The Israelis simply can’t afford to let any ship through, if they want to prevent another ship from passing through the blockade zone a few hours later.

ZEIT ONLINE: The operators of the 2010 humanitarian convoy said right from the outset that the ships were headed for Gaza. Didn’t saying this make them subject to criminal prosecution?

Heintschel von Heinegg: The mere fact that they set sail for Gaza does not constitute a criminal act. But: if you come out and say, in a public forum, that you’re heading to Gaza for the express purpose of breaking the blockade, this is clear evidence of a blockade breaking attempt. And when that happens, the state that has imposed the blockade doesn’t need to wait until the ship in question reaches the 20 nautical mile boundary; instead, it’s got the right to intervene beforehand. Because the state that’s imposing the blockade is not only entitled but also duty bound to maintain its blockade.

ZEIT ONLINE: What do you think the people onboard the current humanitarian convoy are going to be facing?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Any ship that actually breaks the blockade simply has to reckon with the fact that that military force is going to be used against them. Plus the state that’s imposing the blockade is under no obligation to wait until someone actually crosses the blockade line. All that has to happen is for there to be clearly discernible intent – in which case measures can be taken long before the blockade line is crossed.

ZEIT ONLINE: What form could or should such measures take?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Normally such measures unfold without any major problems. The state imposing the blockade stops the vessel, orders it to proceed to a specific port, inspects the ship’s cargo, and then turns the matter over to the courts. But if there’s resistance to the measures taken by the state that’s imposing the blockade, then this state needs to quell this opposition. Which means that any attempt to evade the blockade or the forces enforcing it needs to be met with reasonable force.

“The motivation of the blockade breakers is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.”

ZEIT ONLINE: In your view, was Israel’s reaction to the humanitarian convoy in 2010 a smart move given the humaniarian situation in Gaza?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Well this is how it always is when it comes to such legal issues. In such situations, the actors don’t always act logically, or judiciously; nor are such actions necessarily the politically smart thing to do. A state that imposes a blockade is obligated to supply the civilian population in the blockaded zone with the goods they need in order to survive. But the Israelis have always done this. At the time of the humanitarian convoy in 2010, it was the same in that they said: Feel free to sail into the harbor; we guarantee that we’ll hand over your humanitarian cargo. But it was clear from the get-go that certain parties didn’t want that at all, because then they wouldn’t have achieved the same impact on public opinion.

ZEIT ONLINE: What would you advise the Israeli Prime Minister to do if the next humanitarian convoy approaches the boundary of the blockade zone?

Heintschel von Heinegg: If the Prime Minister wants to maintain the blockade, then he’s simply got to enforce it. If he doesn’t enforce it, it’ll be a dead letter; and then he’d have to resort to other measures; and then the legal situation wouldn’t be so simple. Because then he’d have to invoke the right of self -efense, which is often invoked in cases where it’s simply not appropriate to do so. Our [Germany’s] anti-terrorism operations are a prime example of this.

ZEIT ONLINE: Do you think the Israelis are going to react to this second convoy the same way they reacted to the first one?

Heintschel von Heinegg: I think Israel is better prepared this time around. Last time they tried to approach the convoy ships in rubber dinghies and then climb onboard from these dinghies, in order to take control of the ships. And then they used helicopters. I suspect that the Israeli forces were simply unprepared for the resistance they met from some of the passengers on board those ships and were taken completely by surprise.

ZEIT ONLINE: Is the legal situation now more touchy due to the fact that there’s already been a conflict with a convoy?

Heintschel von Heinegg: I think the reverse is the case. I hope that the relevant legal principles won’t be misused again, since the law of armed conflict applies here – not a cockeyed human rights perspective. Also, Israel didn’t act at all capriciously the first time around. It would have been quite difficult for the Israelis to sink those ships without concerning themselves with the fate of the passengers and cargo onboard. Israel only took measures that were prescribed by law – namely preventing the ships from reaching Gaza. This was the most moderate measure available to them.

ZEIT ONLINE: People are suffering in Gaza, even though they have access to the goods they need in order to survive. Isn’t it legitimate for people to want to help the citizens of Gaza?

Heintschel von Heinegg: The motivation of the blockade breakers – regardless of whether they’re acting for virtuous or reprehensible reasons – is completely irrelevant from a legal standpoint. I, of course, have great respect for human rights activists who give of their time to pursue their goals, but you can’t get around the fact that there are certain legal boundaries. Also, I presume that these humanitarian actions are also publicity stunts aimed at mobilizing public opinion. No one would argue the fact that the citizens of Gaza have it really tough, compared to our own standards. But I don’t really see any pressing humanitarian need here.

ZEIT ONLINE: In your view, is there an alternative to these humanitarian convoys?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Sure there is. There are a few humanitarian organizations out there that have impeccable credentials that no one in their right mind would call into question – the most important one being the International Committee of the German Red Cross. If you really want to help the citizens of Gaza, you go to the Red Cross – an organization that the Israelis accept without hesitation.

ZEIT ONLINE: The border crossing between Gaza and Egypt was recently reopened. Do you think this will have a counterproductive effect on the naval blockade?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Israel has traditionally been able to rely on Egypt, and the border between Gaza and Egypt hasn’t been particularly permeable in the past. But this has changed. The strategic importance of the blockade in terms of protecting Israeli security has definitely declined. But nonetheless, the reliability of Israel’s maritime measures will not be affected in any way by the change in the status of the Gaza-Egypt border.

5 Responses

[…] with them should tell you all you need to know about modern day journalism. KGS The German … Continue reading → Source: Israel BlogsPublished: 23 June 2011Site: tundratabloids.comSource by Date: Israel Blogs-23 […]

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Melting pot societies are the only way to secure the individual…

Multiculturalism is a gross failure. Assimilation, where celebrating one’s own heritage but as a full member of the dominant culture, wins.

There Is No Such Thing As White Cultural Heritage. The West’s Legacy Is Open To All…

There’s No Common Cultural Legacy For The Alt-Right

Still, is there something to it? Is there a common heritage that will cover El Greco and Hume and Dostoyevsky? Is there one that can include the Jacobites and the Jacobins? There is, but it is not racial, and white supremacists reject it because it rejects them. The unifying heritage of Europe is religious and philosophical. It is Jerusalem and Athens, in one famous formulation. Christian religion and Greek philosophy, filtered through Roman law and culture, are the foundation of European culture. The tensions, agreements, developments and settlements between these have shaped the Western world, and these roots of Western civilization are not congenial to white supremacy.

Christianity is universal in its message and Jewish in its origins. For centuries after its founding, Christianity’s center was the Mediterranean world, including Asia Minor and North Africa. Christianity has never been defined by race, and locally-grown racist heresies are only sustainable among those ignorant of Christianity’s teachings, origins and history.

Greek philosophy is likewise ill-suited to serve as a basis for white identity. It is either too universal (addressing the human condition in general) or too local—none of us live as citizens of an ancient Greek polis. Later philosophical developments in Europe, such as the philosophies of the Enlightenment, likewise tend to be too universal for white supremacists seeking a tribal identity. As for the scientific revolution that developed within Western culture (albeit with much borrowed from outside Europe), math doesn’t care what color someone is.

Trending Israeli News…

IDF prepares to demolish Jerusalem terrorist's house
Army units make initial preparations for demolition of terrorist's house, following murder of Adiel Coleman in the Old City of Jerusalem.Man murdered in Jerusalem attack: Adiel Kolman
Jewish man who was murdered in attack in the Old City of Jerusalem identified as Adiel Kolman, a resident of Kochav Hashahar.Murderer of Rabbi Itamar Ben Gal caught
Israeli forces arrest Israeli Arab responsible for the murder of Rabbi Itamar Ben Gal near Ariel last month.ISRAELI AIR FORCE STRIKES HAMAS TERROR TARGET IN GAZA STRIP
"The attack was carried out in response to the placement of explosive devices on the border fence."

SECULARISM AND RELIGION: THE ONSLAUGHT AGAINST THE WEST’S MORAL CODES

War is being waged against Western culture from within which is in essence a war against Christianity and its moral origins in the Hebrew Bible. By attacking these Biblical foundations in the name of reason and human rights, the culture warriors of secularism are sawing off the branch on which they sit. The only way to defend Western civilisation is to reaffirm and restore its Biblical foundations. My argument is a development of ideas I first explored in my 2012 book The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power.

We are living in an era which extols reason, science and human rights. These are said to be essential for progress, a civilised society and the betterment of humanity. Religion is said to be their antithesis, the source instead of superstitious mumbo-jumbo, oppression and backward-thinking.

Some of this hostility is being driven by the perceived threat from Islamic terrorism and the Islamisation of Western culture. However, this animus against religion has far deeper roots and can be traced back to what is considered the birthplace of Western reason, the 18th-century Enlightenment.

Actually, it goes back specifically to the French Enlightenment. In England and Scotland, the Enlightenment developed reason and political liberty within the framework of Biblical belief. In France, by contrast, anti-clericalism morphed into fundamental hostility to Christianity and to religion itself.

“Ecrasez l’infame,” said Voltaire (crush infamy) — the infamy to which he referred being not just the Church but Christianity, which he wanted to replace with the religion of reason, virtue and liberty, “drawn from the bosom of nature”.

Perfecting society

But this Enlightenment did not remove religion so much as pervert it. It took millenarian fantasies, the idea that the perfection of the world was at hand, and it secularised them. Instead of God producing heaven on earth, it would be mankind which would bring that about. Reason would create the perfect society and “progress” was the process by which utopia would be attained.

Middle East expert Mordechai Kedar: To talk of peace in the Middle East is akin to begging to keep your head connected to your shoulders…

What mainstream Islam really teaches, what they believe…

Trending European News..

SAS sniper kills senior ISIS fighter with 'one in a million' night-time headshot from a mile away close to the Syrian border
SAS sniper kills senior ISIS fighter with 'one in a million' shot
The marksman is said to have killed the terrorist with a 'head shot' close to the Syrian border having been given a window of just 15 seconds. He is understood to be a sergeant with the SAS G-Sqaudron and a veteran of operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where he is understood to have recorded as many as 100 kills.Rees-Mogg’s Ultimatum to May: If Britain Bends to EU on Trade Policy It Will Become ‘Joke Nation’Report: Czechs Mulling Moving Embassy to Jerusalem
TEL AVIV – The Czech Republic has begun investigating the possibility of following the U.S.’s lead and moving its embassy to Jerusalem as a result of a diplomatic campaign waged by Israel, Channel 10 reported on Saturday.Danish Social Democrat leader faces criticism after 'using ethnicity' in Facebook debate
Mette Frederiksen has been criticised after she appeared to suggest a commenter was less entitled to take part in debate because of her immigrant background.

Daniel Greenfield explains Islam 101:

"Every devout Muslim is an "Islamist". Islam is not a personal religion. It is a religion of the public space. A "moderate" Muslim would have to reject Islam as a religion of the public space, as theocracy, and that secularism would be a rejection of Islam.

Nothing in Islam exists apart from anything else. While liberals view culture and religion as a buffet that they can pick and choose from, it is a single integrated system. If you accept one part, you must accept the whole. Once you accept any aspect of Islam, you must accept its legal system and once you accept that, you must accept its governance and once you accept that, you lose your rights.''

Trending Middle East News…

Republican Senator expects Trump to pull out of Iran deal
Senator Bob Corker says he expects Trump to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement in May.Greenblatt: Hamas is burying Gaza's future
Trump’s envoy condemns Samaria terrorist attack, blasts Hamas for welcoming it.Analysis: Here's how to deal with the barbaric Syrian regime
Electrocuting children, turning hospitals into slaughterhouses, using chemical weaponry - how long can this be allowed to continue?(Thanks to Obama for giving a time date for US departure)
Analysts: Iraq War Legacy Marked by Failure, Some Success

Jenin: Massacring Truth (This documentary was made long before the term #FakeNews got started…